Sure, there was a great lot to be moved … unfortunately I had to keep my notes short due to other duties … but descriptions like:
#14 medium bright ruby, forthcoming and complex nose, really singing with underlying acidity, very fine, drinking great, 94p #25: full saturated, tons of red and dark fruits, nice touch of well integrated oak, very intense with great inner core, youthful but super, 98p
in combination with the points and the group ratings should give a certain idea how the wines showed …
In almost all fine exemplares one could see a certain finesse in combination with red-berried sweetness … and the tannins were really velvety and seldom inj the foreground …
I though about making a summery if I find the time … but since the interest in this tasting seems not to be that euphoric I´m not sure if I´ll do the work.
it is really odd that this topic doesn´t produce more interest.
A shame!
The only Musignys I have tasted over the last years were
Jadot 2001 - really singing, probably similar to your Laurent
Drouhin 2002 - very primary but fine
Vogüe 1999 - concentrated, closed
Vogüe 1982 - rather light, disapointing
Mugnier 2004 - less green than the NSG Marechale but infected
Mugnier 2000 - rellay singing, outstanding finesse
Your selection of vintages seemed to be very wise!
Gerhard…to a degree both Berry and Alan are “right”…and that cuts down on the euphoria from people who weren’t there.
It is the “summary”, I think, that could elicit euphoria…or at least a sense of what you really got out of this seemingly great effort.
The way it is, it is sort of difficult to really glean that much…and I tried. The wines show no particular pattern that I can discern, and what revelations you are left with are difficult to deduce. Musigny is a vineyard I have little experience with and lots of curiosity about, particularly as they age. So, I hope you do “find the time” to let us know what and how you were moved by this symphony/cacophony/ensemble or whatever it was for you.
I’d be particularly interested in knowing what your goals/expectations were for this tasting, and whether they were satisfied.
On the suggestion of Stuart, Alan and Barry here is kind of a summary of the tasting:
(My points): … wines in decending vintage order … 98points:#25: 2006 Domaine Joseph Faiveley (Nuits-St-Georges) 96p#26: 1998 Domaine George Roumier (Chambolle-Musigny) #29: 1989 Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé (Chambolle-Musigny) #19: 1969 Domaine Moine-Hudelot (Chambolle-Musigny) 95p#15: 1997 Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé (Chambolle-Musigny)95 #28: 1989 Maison Louis Jadot (Beaune) 94+p#16: 1999 Domaine Jacques-Frederic Mugnier (Chambolle-Musigny) 94p#24: 2002 Domaine Jacques-Frederic Mugnier (Chambolle-Musigny) #14: 2001 Dominique Laurent (Nuits-St-Georges) #10: 1979 Maison Antonin Rodet (Mercurey) – fruit most probably from Mugnier 93p#27: 1992 Domaine Leroy (Vosne-Romanée) #5: 1990 Musigny Domaine Jacques Prieur (Meursault) #21: 1961 Joseph Drouhin (Beaune) 92+p#7 1996 Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru „La Combe d´Orveau“ - Dom. Henri Perrot-Minot 92p#13: 1998 Domaine Drouhin-Laroze (Gevrey-Chambertin) #6: 1991 Musigny Domaine Comte Georges de Vogüé (Chambolle-Musigny) #18: 1964 Henry de Boursault (Savigny-lés-Beaune) 91p#30: 1980 Maison Leroy (Auxey-Duresses) – a recent release #11: 1976 Maison Bouchard Pere & Fils (Beaune) 90-92?p #23: 1999 Domaine de la Vougeraie (Premeaux) – I think the 1st vintage 90p#22: 2003 Maison Joseph Drouhin (Beaune) #4: 1995 Musigny Domaine Christian Confuron (Vougeot) #20: 1953 Maison J. Calvet (Beaune) 89p#17: 1972 Maison Louis Latour (Beaune) 88p#8 1980 Morin Pere et Fils (Nuits-St-Georges) 84p#9 1981 Domaine Mugnier (mis en bouteille most probably by Bernard Clair/Clair-Daü)
corked#3 1993 Musigny Maison Georges Vasseur (Nuits-St-Georges) #12 1971 Maison Charles Parizot (Beaune) The goal of the tasting was:
to get an idea of the character of GC Musigny – if anything like that is present at all … in different vintages and in very different stages of evolution.
to taste most if not all proprietors of the Grand Cru Musigny (missing was Dufouleur – said to be rather disapointing from two different sides, but expensive nevertheless, and Monthelie-Douhairet-Porcheret – with an annual production of around 60 bottles simply unobtainable …).
to check the quality of the different bottlings – not only of owners but also of negociant bottlings as far as available,
and eventually check the agability of this Grand Cru.
Ad
Almost all wines showed a certain red-berried fruit with pronounced sweetness and in most cases a fine velvet texture, often minerally and flowery components, and even when a bit plummy outsanding finesse and complexity. The tannins were never in the foreground, well integrated into the fruit – and also the oak was never prominent and really „eaten“ by the depth and concentration of almost all wines. The only exception IMHO was the Vougeraie where the toast was a bit annoying for me. There was a distinctive difference for instance to the typical structure of Gevrey Grand Crus (incl. Clos de la Roche) … as well as to the exotic spicyness of Vosne, although the texture is usually not dissimilar to a fine St.Vivant. depending on the vintage the acidity was sometimes lively but rarely intrusive.
the mean quality of Musigny is really very high … there was no really bad wine in the tasting, the 1981 „Mugnier“ simply over apogée and only „good“, and two others - 1972 Latour and 1980 Morin - were „very good“ both due to mean vintage qualities. Even Christian Confuron, from whom I´ve tasted only few but consistently disapointing other wines made an outstanding Musigny in 1995 – a sign of the „terroir“. Several wines were simply stunning, not only the great Faiveley, but also Roumier (if very young), all 3 Vogüés, the 2 „real“ Mugniers 1999 and 2002, the perfectly mature Jadot 1989 and the „wow“-Moine-Hudelot 1969, perhaps the best mature wine of the evening. Also Drouhin was very good, if suffering a bit from the vintage (2003) or the less than perfect fill (1961). Drouhin-Laroze was excellent if overshadowed. Only the Leroy 1992 – which was the most expensive bottle – did not quite live up to the (too high?) expectations, but perhaps still could improve. The 1996 Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru „La Combe d´Orveau“ - Perrot-Minot – proved to be of real Grand Cru quality … and wasn´t really inferior to the 1990 Prieur, but both showed more certain plumminess than wines from the „Northern end“ (although Leroy also origins from the North“). Sure one could have also included the Combe d´Orveau bottlings by Clavelier, Faiveley, Taupenot-Merme or Prieur, but I already had to leave out another 10 Musigny-bottlings … otherwise it would have been simply excessive in length and price.
Also most negociant bottlings showed really well, on top Dominique Laurent and the great 1979 Rodet bottling (most probably from Mugnier-fruit), but also the 1964 Henry de Boursault, 1976 Bouchard Pere and 1953 Calvet delivered a lot of pleasure. The only tiny „drop of wermouth“ was Leroys 1980, an outstanding wine, but not fine enough for the expectations and the high price. I guess also the Vasseur 1993 and Parizot 1971 would have been fine if not corked.
With the exception of the 1981 „Mugnier/Clair?“ no wine was over the hill – and the bottles from the 60ies really „sang“, the 1953 was still drinking fine. On the other hand even the youthful bottles were not really „closed“ and certainly accessable, if definitely not showing most qualities.
So I think the tasting showed clearly the great qualities of the vineyard which IMHO belongs to the Top 7 or 8 reds of the Cote d´Or.
PS: The white „Bourgogne“ 2006/Vogüé (declassified Musigny blanc) was another matter. Rightfully declassified, but nevertheless 100+ Euros it wasn´t worth half the price. I did NOT take the opportunity to buy a mature 1989 or 1992 Musigny blanc for 400+ Euro – and I´m convinced with good reason.
PPS: 2 corked wines out of 30, both from minor negociants, that´s 6.66% … could have been much worse !
this last posting is more helpful. What I’ve gleaned from the tasting is that Vogue didn’t perform as well as it should–having the lion’s share of Musigny should allow better selection and thus performance. That’s Roumier’s problem–he makes only a little more than a barrel of Musigny and can’t do any selection like he can with Bonnes Mares and other holdings. But yet Faiveley, with tiny Musigny holdings like Roumier, came to the top of the tasting, followed by Roumier!
The next point is that one can’t assume vintage hierarchy–that there’ll always be someone whose product rises above expectations (the 98 Vogue). Also, there’s a lot of quality variability, as one might have expected with so many producers.
Mugnier looks like he’s doing pretty well w/his Musigny. You can’t have everything, but the 98 Musigny from Mugnier would have been interesting in context of the other 98s and other Mugnier products.
Musigny certainly ages. The two greatest reds I’ve ever had were 29 and 45 Vogue Musigny.
It may or may not be true that de Vogüé could have done better, Alan, but I don’t think it is a justified inference from Gerhard’s posting.
First, we are judging but single bottles and across diverse vintages. Second, there are multiple tasters of which Gerhard is just one. Moreover, even if you are going to appoint Gerhard the objective and unimpeachable judge of wine (or at least Musigny), how many other 95 point Musignys (or other wines) are you going to find for 1997 and 1989?
Second, having the greatest amount of vines in a given vineyard does not necessarily imply the highest potential – there may be a small plot in someone else’s hands that is the finest or someone else may have vegetal material that is superior, etc.
I don´t feel Vogüé underperformed at all.
96, 95, 92 points - if you allow to quote my personal ratings - are no bad results for 1989, 1997 and 1991 vintages - all very good but no top vintages.
I admit that Vogüé never was the (single) favorite wine in any flight for the group, too … but on the other hand my pairing was deliberately intended to be “demanding”
I believe that the Vogue ratings for " second rate " vintages are quite good, at least. Having drunk the 89 last November I really agree with this score. Would love to drink it every night for the years to come without looking for something else.
Ok, then how about the conclusion that “it’s difficult to draw conclusions about Musigny from such a tasting where producers and years were so varied, where there weren’t multiple versions of the same vintage wine and the results were posted by only one specific taster?”
There was quite a few off/lesser vintages and many varied producers represented here as Alan stated, so this tasting has no real structured sense of making a direct comparisons of the top producers/top vintages in any significant way, but is instead a more varied overall look. This means it is either of less value to those who might rather see a whole run of say, the great vintages of Vogue, but of greater value to someone who wants to get some understanding of Musigny in general, which is obviously what the idea is here…
Alan, don’t discount the '98 Musigny’s, especially Vogues…Both the Vogue and the Mugnier are really very, very good…
I already mentioned (post #28) that the 98 Mugnier would have been interesting in this tasting; I own it, have posted on it, and I love it. Actually, I own the Vogue, too, but won’t open it or Mugnier for some time to come . . .
alan
it´s always been posted here: PRODUCER is everything in Burgundy !
I hate it only to talk about the “great” vintages … a producer has to bottle his/her wine in every vintage … and especially in Burgundy the top-Crus are always expensive … so why not compare them - or better said “taste them side by side” !
In many instances the group could NOT thell which vintage the wines were - or even which is the oldest and which the youngest wine.
sure it might have also been interesting to compare many producers in a given vintage … let´s say 1998 or 1999 … but it was difficult enough to organize a 1998 Roumier-bottle for instance at a decent price … you can easily guess how much the tasting would have been if e.g. ten 1999s would have been in the selection!
(and you can also guess how much it actually was per taster out of 16).
Many recent top-vintages are nowhere near maturity … and it´s simply a waste to open them if available in my own cellar. I´m am very convinced that the results and the pleasure is higher with more mature vintages.
E.g. I have tasted the 1991 Vogüé young - and it was absolutely neither a pleasure nor a revelation of its potential … the wine was so closed one couldn´t tell anything. That´s why I also let the 1995 Vogüe out …
I agree with Paul (except that the only vintage that could be called “off” was 1981 … but also not in general).
The intention was no taste “Musigny” - from most producers and in many vintages …
A Vogüé-tasting or a 1998-(Musigny or Burgundy-or Grand Cru) tasting is simply something different …
AND BTW: Kevin just posted a TN about 1998 Mugnier … that´s highly welcome and very interesting …
Claude is right: Vogüés results for 1997 and 1989 are really reputable with 95-96 points … and moreover these vintages are already in a state of fine drinkability … I´m curious to hear the names of other wines from this vintages with a higher score (some but not many!)
I think many a discussion here on the board suffers from a certain
“addiction” to 100-pointers only … and if not 100 THEN 99 or at least 98 …
I repeat myself: Only 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 Musignys wouldn´t hav ebeen more pleasure … just the contrary … but maybe some here would have been more “impressed” …
Color me impressed, Gerhard! Sounds like a great tasting. Thank you for your fine notes and excellent summary.
I am learning that Pinot in general, and fine Burgundy specifically, does not lend itself to the 100 pt (or 20 pt) scale. Scoring seems mostly about hedonistic appreciation. Pinot is best appreciated in a different way entirely.
)1) Almost all wines showed a certain red-berried fruit with pronounced sweetness and in most cases a fine velvet texture, often minerally and flowery components, and even when a bit plummy outsanding finesse and complexity. The tannins were never in the foreground, well integrated into the fruit – and also the oak was never prominent and really „eaten“ by the depth and concentration of almost all wines. The only exception IMHO was the Vougeraie where the toast was a bit annoying for me. There was a distinctive difference for instance to the typical structure of Gevrey Grand Crus (incl. Clos de la Roche) … as well as to the exotic spicyness of Vosne, although the texture is usually not dissimilar to a fine St.Vivant. depending on the vintage the acidity was sometimes lively but rarely intrusive.
2) the mean quality of Musigny is really very high …
So I think the tasting showed clearly the great qualities of the vineyard which IMHO belongs to the Top 7 or 8 reds of the Cote d´Or.
Gerhard, I think that’s what your tasting really showed to me. The common charteristics you sensed/learned which are imparted to the wines by the vineyard, no matter the vintage, producer, etc. Different from Gevrey/CdlR and even from Vosnes’. And, your view of where it stands in the hierarchy of the grand crus (I am a little surprised it is that low for you…but…certainly can’t argue, as I have little experience with most of what I’d guess are your top 6-7 i.,e, the DRC stuff. (Beyond that, it was too diverse to really extrapolate for me.) But, what are those “above” Musigny in your hierarchy…now, I’m curious, especially since I sense a “chicken and egg” thing going on with monopoles…is it the vineyard, the producer, the mystique or the lack of “bad” examples that make them so revered.
Thanks for adding your insights. I think I have a better handle on the character of Musigny now, though I wasn’t surprised at the “high” average/mean quality. It is treated royally at every place I’ve visited that has had one.
Stuart,
I didn´t say “top 6-7 above Musigny” … I said Musigny is ONE OF THE top 7 to 8 … without a determined hierarchy …
Nevertheless I´d say that Romanee-Conti is on top, the primus inter pares, the “hors classe” …
Then (from South to North)
La Tâche
La Romanee
Romanée-St-Vivant
Richebourg
Musigny
Chambertin
and Ch.Clos de Beze (if you count that seperately)
… which one is 2nd, 3rd etc. I leave to others for the moment …
(sure that can be a matter of discussion …) - but I´m talking about vineyards in general, not producers - but I know we´ve got 3 monopoles among the 8 …
BTW: in June there will be a similar extensive RSV-tasting …
Brady, sure, you cannot judge Burgundy in the same way as Bordeaux, California or Rhone wines … one gives a lot of points for sheer concentration, another one for complexity, the 3rd for elegance and so on …
There are also a lot more disapointing Burgundies than e.g. Bordeaux … (less in the last vintages than in the 80ies) … but believe me: WHEN a Burgundy is really good it´s better than all other wines … (at least for me)
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
![[worship.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/9/99a8907a1d5b3c023582052741dc72dc9823c044.gif "worship"){kind=small}
